 |
Should we give Cherbourg to another nation?
This poll is closed. |
| Yes; Give to Russia |
   |
2 |
6.25% |
| Yes; Give to Greece |
   |
7 |
21.88% |
| Yes; Give to Germany |
   |
8 |
25.00% |
| Yes; Give to England |
   |
2 |
6.25% |
| Yes; Give to Other (Please Post) |
   |
2 |
6.25% |
| No |
   |
11 |
34.38% |
| Total: |
32 voters |
100% |
|
|  |
 |
|
adaMada
|
 |
"The Iron" Stadium, Ubergorsk, Apolytonia (C3DG)
Mar 2000 time: 00:22
|
|
This is my last action as Acting Foreign Minister, since Togas is back. I want to thank everyone for their input and discussion while Togas was away; without an active public, I'd never have been able to last through it .
This is unofficial, but it may help dictate Foreign Policy.
Should we give Cherbourg away? Poll will last three days, as that's about how long we have before the next turnchat.
As some of you may have noticed, the Romans have approached Cherbourg with several troops. As we have no desire to start a war with the Romans, and as Cherbourg is basically worthless, it seems to be the best option to give it away, and let the Romans declare war on someone else if they want to .
Once a Diplomatic Issue entry has been added in the Foreign Affairs office, I'll add a link.
-- adaMada
Poll choices are:
* Give to Russia. Right next to Rome, would be a nasty war for both. I think Russia might be destroyed by it though.
* Give to Greece. Best option, I think. Would hurt both Rome and Greece, who are the other two most powerful nations right now.
* Give to Germany. Would mean that both would be less likely to declare war on us, and would tie two of the most dangerous civs up for the time being. May also improve relations, as Germany is furious with us.
* Give to England. If Rome does take the city and declare war, little will happen due to the distance involved. If they don't take the city, it'll be worthless anyway due to distance.
* Give to Other. Please post who.
* Don't give away. Might send us to war, but we cannot appear weak.
Last edited by adaMada on 15-09-2002 at 07:24
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Aggie
|
 |
Of GOW's half of BOB
Jun 2002 time: 23:22
|
|
We are on the verge of having it get to size 2, then we can simply disband and send the settler home, it would be a shame to waste a potentil free settler. We could give rome some gold and make them happy, yes it was free city,but i'd rather turn it into a good free city. Its been bypassed many times in the last few turns, it will probably be by passed again. If it was further away from going to size 2 i'd say get rid of it, but why give away a city that could give us another settler. In short i am categorically opposed to giving this city away when we are SOOOOO cllose to be able to move it.
Ps. Adamada, you have done a wonderful job.
Aggie
Last edited by Aggie on 15-09-2002 at 08:06
|
|
|  |
 |
|
adaMada
|
 |
"The Iron" Stadium, Ubergorsk, Apolytonia (C3DG)
Mar 2000 time: 00:22
|
|
I'm a tad bit worried about Rome right now, to be honest.
We give them a great deal, and they become polite to us. Their troops continue to make a beline for Cherbourg, and they're suddenly cautious again. I don't think it's a good sign overall.
Though I'd like to have the settler, if others have the same worry that I do, then it may be impractical. I value staying at peace with Rome far more than I value a single settler, no matter how useful it would be (and remembering that it'll be a nightmare to get back to the mainland, especially if the AI decides to kick it out of it's terratory).
-- adaMada
EDIT: Thanks to Aro for pointing out that they're only cautious, not hostile.
Last edited by adaMada on 15-09-2002 at 09:37
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Aro
|
 |
Ipanema
Jul 2002 time: 02:22
|
|
quote: Originally posted by adaMada
Aro,
Good Point. I fixed it in my earlier post.
My main reason is that I've been told that another war is the only thing that can deter us from defeating Persia -- wouldn't it be lousy if we got that other war, all because we weren't willing to give up two pop points/a settler? Obviously, the Map trading issue was similar, and I took the opposite side then, but I'm inclined to be more cautious this time, as much less is at stake. I'm also open to others thoughts, since I haven't clearly decided either way.
-- adaMada |
I can understand your concerns, AdaMada. We can't have luck all the time, and there is a probability to get into a war with Rome for nothing. The AI is sometimes very stupid. I doubt that a human player (in a multiplayer game) would take Cheerbourg, but we don't have humans playing against us. The closest thing is the Firaxis team, of course. 
I'm still supporting the Aggie's idea, but if we need to give Cheerbourg, IMHO, we can't reinforce our competitors. Give the city to Germans, or Aztecs. This will be a problem for them, not a prize.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Shiber
|
 |
Haifa, Israel
Jul 2002 time: 07:22
|
|
Umm... guys...
We don't get a worker or a settler or anything of that kind for abandoning a size 2 town. Not on 1.21 anyway.
I ran an experiment so I'm 100% sure.
Currently Cherbourg is worth 3gpt to us (1gpt produced in the town tile and 2 free support which save us 2gpt) and that's it.
Frankly, I don't know if the Romans are going to attack or not and I haven't made my mind about the fate of the town yet (though I tend to lean towards giving it away), but if we choose to give it away then I say we give it to Germany for all the reasons mentioned by Ghengis (the post below).
Last edited by Shiber on 15-09-2002 at 17:40
|
|
|  |
 |
|
adaMada
|
 |
"The Iron" Stadium, Ubergorsk, Apolytonia (C3DG)
Mar 2000 time: 00:22
|
|
I still really like the idea of giving it to Greece, since I see Greece and Rome as the longest term threats to us once they get into a few wars. I don't think that either Greece or Rome could destroy each other, but I think they could chip away and stop each other from advancing while we move ahead, letting us solidfy our lead over them.
Having said that, giving to to Germany wouldn't be bad either -- they're another nation we don't want to go to war with. I'm not sure, however, that a war between these nations would weaken either much -- they're too far apart, and would probably have declared peace before either side's troops would reach the others. If anything, that'd probably lead to a few nations signing alliances on one side or the other, and who knows what affects that would have...
-- adaMada
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
DAVOUT
|
 |
AUERSTADT
Jun 2002 time: 05:22
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Shiber
I didn't know Rome fought someone in the ancient age. They must have, otherwise they couldn't have had an elite warrior.
I only noticed that the warrior is elite now. This is rather interesting...
Does anybody know when Rome fought another civ and which civ this was? |
Could be old, against the barbarians (the elite level).
What is new is Krasnoiark. The russians seems to be more active these days.
I would not favor a war between Rome and Germany : they are too far from each other, and either we would be the battlefield with the risk of being drawn in the war, or nothing would happens, as in the Helleno-British war. War wearyness would also play a major role, considering that the Germans have been at war for a long time already.
But if the Russians are building a horse army, why not them. Another solution is to consolidate the French.
Last edited by DAVOUT on 16-09-2002 at 01:47
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22. Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|